Thread: Immigration compromise continues to elude lawmakers

Immigration compromise continues to elude lawmakers
May 2, 2007
Story Highlights• So far, the only agreement between Dems, GOP is how hard it is to agree
• But President Bush, Democrats in general agreement
• Speaker Pelosi wants Bush to guarantee GOP votes for any plan
From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As advocates for immigration reform marched at sites across the country Tuesday, their protests were aimed squarely at Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have been struggling, without success, to come up with a compromise on the contentious issue.

The White House and key lawmakers have been urgently negotiating for nearly a month, trying to come up with a new way forward, but, so far, the only agreement out of those talks is how hard it is to agree.

"All of the meetings I've been in are very intense, because this is the number one domestic issue in the country, and passions run deeply on all sides," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, who co-authored an immigration reform plan that stalled in the last Congress, said the negotiations in recent weeks "have not been easy."

Ironically, immigration reform is one of the few issues where President Bush and Democratic leaders in Congress generally see eye-to-eye -- to the consternation of many conservatives in Bush's own political base.

Bush and most Democrats support creating a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million immigrants already in the country illegally. But many in the GOP fiercely oppose those proposals, labeling any legalization plan as "amnesty."

To try to alleviate some of that conservative opposition, sources have told CNN that bipartisan negotiators are considering a compromise -- a so-called trigger -- under which a guest worker program and a path to citizenship would only kick in after the Bush administration showed progress in securing borders and enforcing immigration laws.

The hope is that this would help increase support among House Republicans, who successfully killed immigration reform last year.

However, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has told the White House that she will not bring an immigration bill to the House floor unless the president can deliver at least 70 GOP votes.

A Democratic source said Pelosi wants enough Republican support to give the proposal a true bipartisan label and make it harder for Republicans to use it against Democrats in 2008.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/ ... index.html

A Democratic source said Pelosi wants enough Republican support to give the proposal a true bipartisan label and make it harder for Republicans to use it against Democrats in 2008.

What Pelosi really means is she doesn't want TRUE AMERICANS to think it was only the Democrats who sold out America. These people, collectively, are not worth the powder it would take to blow them all to hell....not that hell would want anything to do with them because it would give the place a bad name.

May Is Immigration Reform Month on the Hill
By Angie C. Marek
Posted 5/1/07
The emotions and the crowds may not be as boisterous, large, and bedecked in Mexican flags as they were during last year's May Day immigration rallies, but make no mistake about it, many watching the issue closely are still plenty worried about the direction of immigration reform.

On Tuesday, as more than a thousand people gathered to march in Phoenix–and thousands upon thousands descended on the cities of Chicago and Los Angeles–delicate negotiations among lawmakers were still continuing unabated behind closed doors in Washington. Many say if consensus isn't reached soon, it could be Mayday for the whole immigration effort until 2009, at least.

Right now all attention is focused on the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to kick off discussion on May 14 with two weeks of floor debate on an immigration reform bill.

Earlier this spring the White House decided it would be necessary to secure the support of conservative Senate Republicans for any reforms, with the idea being that crucial support there could persuade skeptical House conservatives to vote for a reform bill when they take one up later this summer.

For weeks, White House officials–led by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez–have been meeting almost daily with the Republicans they're trying to court, including, most crucially, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, who opposed the more moderate immigration reform bill that passed the Senate last year. A PowerPoint presentation that leaked in March of a working proposal being floated among the group prompted some ire from immigration advocates. They objected to two provisions: a $10,000 fine immigrants would need to pay to get a green card and a tightening of restrictions on immigrants' sponsorship of family members for visas.

Since then, Democratic senators, including liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy, have entered the negotiating room. Still, says Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant group, "It's easy to become increasingly concerned because the days are ticking by and we've yet to see anything good come out of these negotiations." Many are banking on a bill that would come directly out of negotiations onto the floor of the Senate, bypassing the usual channels in the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, which could be done if Reid invokes a special Senate rule.

The latest proposals being weighed by the group reportedly still call for some crucial shifts in decades of immigration policy–especially current laws that have resulted in more than three fourths of legal migration to this country being for the reunification of family members. The administration has proposed to eliminate visa categories that currently allow immigrants already here to bring over adult children, siblings, and potentially parents; visas to bring over spouses and young children would be unaffected. At the same time, eliminated visa classes would be replaced with new "merit visas" that would reward immigrants with in-demand skills.

Proposals also appear to allow the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to legalize their status as long as they pass a background check and pay large fines. Unlike last year's Senate bill, the entire visa reform process would not begin until certain "triggers," or enforcement benchmarks, have been met at the border. Proposals so far also call for guest workers to come and work for three years at a time before being sent home for at least a year; workers that chose to bring family members could only do two-year-long work stints in the country. President Bush has said he's pushing for reforms "without amnesty and without animosity."

Tamar Jacoby, a Republican immigration expert with the Manhattan Institute who has long agreed with the administration's immigration policies, says one crucial question will be if some portion of the temporary workers will be able to eventually become citizens, and if there will be enough visas for a decent portion to do so in a timely manner.

"Some people will want to come and do work for a short time and go home, but we as Americans, should want some immigrants to stay," Jacoby says. "I don't think we can abandon the whole melting-pot model for a strictly temporary model that could create a whole permanent underclass of workers."

She also, like many, worries that the clock is ticking. Many experts say if an immigration reform bill doesn't pass in 2007, presidential election politics will make it virtually impossible to do anything the following year, in 2008.

"They've got two weeks of hard negotiations to go on this bill," says Jacoby. "And I think a lot of things are going to change in those two weeks." Immigration advocates and thousands on the streets for May Day certainly hope so.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/artic ... ration.htm

lawmakers were still continuing unabated behind closed doors in Washington

God forbid that any commoner (read taxpaying American citizen) should get wind of anything they are discussing behind those closed doors.....until they're ready to ram it down our throats.

OLIVER!

here ya go, lol........just as we were told
We are sooooooooo far ahead here at ALIPAC!

To try to alleviate some of that conservative opposition, sources have told CNN that bipartisan negotiators are considering a compromise -- a so-called trigger -- under which a guest worker program and a path to citizenship would only kick in after the Bush administration showed progress in securing borders and enforcing immigration laws.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

OLIVER!

here ya go, lol........just as we were told
We are sooooooooo far ahead here at ALIPAC!

To try to alleviate some of that conservative opposition, sources have told CNN that bipartisan negotiators are considering a compromise -- a so-called trigger -- under which a guest worker program and a path to citizenship would only kick in after the Bush administration showed progress in securing borders and enforcing immigration laws.

NO TRIGGERS!

NO TRIGGERS

another word for lies!!

TRIGGERS??????? I get so damn fed up with these mental midgets (posing as our elected representatives) insulting my intelligence.

It's like who the hell is forcing these idiots to wet themselves in order to accommodate a bunch of criminals? Even when the American Citizens have and continue to speak out against amnesty.

Tamar Jacoby, a Republican immigration expert with the Manhattan Institute who has long agreed with the administration's immigration policies, says one crucial question will be if some portion of the temporary workers will be able to eventually become citizens, and if there will be enough visas for a decent portion to do so in a timely manner.

Tamar Jacoby is no Republican and the Manhattan Institute is a liberal think tank. More friggin' propaganda to get conservatives to latch on to this. Ain't going to happen, Ms. Marek--those days of fooling Americans are over.

Triggers are so stupid and arbitrary. Bush would say the triggers had been met 2 days after any bill was passed.